Essex Public Road Board v. Skinkle

• Decision Date: 11 May 1891
• Citation: 11 S.Ct. 790,35 L.Ed. 446,140 U.S. 334
• Parties: ESSEX PUBLIC ROAD BOARD v. SKINKLE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

140 U.S. 334

11 S.Ct. 790

35 L.Ed. 446

ESSEX PUBLIC ROAD BOARD v. SKINKLE.

May 11, 1891.

[Statement of Case from pages 334-338 intentionally omitted] John W. Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

J. Frank Fort, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Was the obligation of a contract impaired, or plaintiff deprived of property without due process of law, by the act of March 31, 1882? The argument is that because the real estate assessed might, in the absence of purchasers at the sale to enforce the assessment, be struck off to the board for the term of 50 years, under the fifth section of the act of 1875, (Laws N. J. 1875, p. 420,) and might 'be held and sold, assigned and disposed of, by said board for the use of the county, with all the rights and privileges of a purchaser at such sale,' the board, whenever this happened, became vested with a term in the real estate so struck off to it by the same title, and subject to the same protection, which any other bona fide purchaser at such sale would have acquired under section 15 of the act of 1869. Laws N. J. 1869, p. 957. And that, therefore, the act of 1882, (Laws N. J. 1882, p. 256,) in providing a mode by which the assessment might be compounded, compromised, and discharge, and that this might be done where the real estate had not been sold to a bona fide purchaser other than the public road board or its representative, impaired and annulled an executed contract, and took for the defendant's private use property vested in the board. We do not concur in this view. The public road board was an involuntary quasi corporation, created to construct a public work and authorized to procure the means to accomplish the improvement by the imposition of assessments upon private property. It was purely a governmental agency, existing wholly for public purposes, and whose interests belonged exclusively to the public. The power of the legislature over it was plenary. It held, and could hold, no real estate in a proprietary or private sense, and, after it was empowered to bid in at its own sale, it acquired no more proprietary interest in the real estate struck off to it than it had had in the assessment. Its purchase was in perpetuation of the lien, and in aid of collection, and it was as competent for the legislature as between it and its own agent, to prescribe terms upon which the land-owner might redeem, as to abolish the board and rescind the assessment altogether, as it might do, saving any vested rights of third parties. The entire transaction was matter of law, and not of contract, and, as such, open to no constitutional objection. Commissioners v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108; Newton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548; State v. Railroad Co., 3 How. 534. Even as to third parties, an assessment is not a 'contract' in the sense in which the word in used in the constitution of the United States, and whether rights arising thereon have become vested depends upon circumstances. Garrison v. New York, 21 Wall. 196; Railroad Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395. In Garrison v. New York this court decided that the New York act of 1871, authorizing the supreme court of the state to vacate an rde r made in 1870, confirming the report of the commissioners respecting property taken for a public improvement, if error, mistake, irregularity, or illegality appeared in the proceedings, or the assessments for benefits or the awards for damage had been unfair and unjust, or inequitable or oppressive, and to refer the matter back to new commissioners to amend or correct the report, or to make a new assessment, was not unconstitutional. Mr. Justice FIELD, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'In the proceeding to condemn the property of the plaintiff for a public street, there was nothing in the nature of a contract between him and the city. The state, in virtue of her right of eminent domain, had authorized the city to take his property for a public purpose, upon making to him just compensation. All that the constitution or justice required was that a just compensation should be made to him, and his property would then be taken, whether or not he assented to the measure. The proceeding to ascertain the benefits or losses which will accrue to the owner of property when taken for public use and thus the compensation to be made to him, is in the nature of an inquest on the part of the state, and is necessarily under her control. It is her duty to see that the estimates made are just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which is to pay for it. And she can to that end...